This guy again!
Yep.
in regard to anyone's life and death, how exactly will a moral realist react?
*Depends on who died, doesn't it? If my 16 year passes, I'll be devastated, but his death won't, nor should it, move you. My kid is a stranger to you. It would be nice if you felt sumthin' but it ain't required. (and: moral realism = moral objectivism...just sayin').
And how exactly are the convictions of the moral realist any less rooted existentially in dasein?
Cuz dasein ain't real. You believe everything a person
is comes thru indoctrination. You're wrong. If you, for example, were nuthin' but the sum of indoctrination, then how can you be fractured? Sumthin' of you, sumthin' coherent and consistent, must be other than indoctrinated
product. You may be uncertain and untethered, or lack grounding, but there's a
you, a coherent and consistent
sumthin', that can look at your circumstance and find it lacking. So your all-encompassin' dasein is manure.
Take for example Donald Trump. Suppose tomorrow he drops dead of a heart attack. Or he's assassinated. How might a moral realist react to that?
Depends on the moral realist, doesn't it? Some won't give a damn, some will be pleased, some will grieve, some will shrug then fish around for another hand grenade. It ain't dasein: it's just perspective and investment.
Any moral realists here among us care to take that on?
Just did.
Ah, so this is a moral realist's position as opposed to a moral objectivist? In other words, given this...
"Moral realism is the position that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world, some of which may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately."
...what he asserts to be true is simply to be understood by all rational human beings as necessarily/inherently in sync with the "objective feature of an unwanted pregnancy".
What I assert is: At least from the end of the 12th week, what a woman carries is a person. And killin' a person, except in self-defense/defense of another, is a no-no. If you disagree: you're wrong, a moron, and my enemy.
Same thing. You either entirely agree with his premises and conclusions in regard to bazookas [or hand grenades or claymore mines or chemical/biological weapons or a dirty bomb] as property or you are necessarily/inherently wrong.
Nope. If you don't agree that a man is free and has an inalienable right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property then you're wrong, a moron, and my enemy. Get it right.
He is about as hardcore a moral objectivist as they come here.
Yep. I'm an unrepentant moral realist...probably the worst one here.
He even has his very own private and personal God
Oh, He's yours too. Don't worry: He's either not around or He's indifferent or He's watchin', voyeur-like, or He passed away. You won't have to take a knee.
a God who created him to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature".
He created us all as free wills, to do as we each choose (and to bear the consequences of those choices). We are reasoning creatures, but not rational, no. We're moral creatures but we can choose to lie, cheat, steal, slave, rape, and murder (mind them consequences). As for nature: itself just clockwork, orderly...that didn't come about without direction.
On the other hand, ask him to note examples of where he was once wrong in the past about issues like this. He has, in fact, admitted to me that, indeed, in the past, he was wrong about the "big stuff".
I was wrong to be an atheist and nihilist. How's that for
big stuff?
Only he won't cite any examples of this. It's "personal".
Just did.
And, in having been wrong in the past, he is admitting that he may well be wrong about important issues in the present.
Yep. I could be wrong about what is the most important thing about any man, that bein' he's free and has a natural, inalienable right to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property, You up for provin' me wrong on that? Have at it.
Only, come on, we know that's bullshit. You simply don't run across many who are as arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian as he is in regard to value judgments.
Oh, I'm awful: I demand each recognize himself, and the other guy, as free with a natural, inalienable right to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property. I'm a friggin' tyrant.
Next up: see henry configure into "Mr. Snippet" and/or "Mr. Wiggle".
Wrong
again.